the net energy factor and the renewables transition, response to Paul
Michel Bauwens
From: Jeff Vail <jsv...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:20 AM
Subject: Re:
To: Michel Bauwens <michel...@gmail.com>
Cc: Peer-To-Peer Research List <p2pre...@listcultures.org>
Paul D. Fernhout
> Reactions also welcome at
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/debate-on-the-fossil-to-renewable-energy-eroei-transition/2010/01/12
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Jeff Vail <jsv...@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:20 AM
> Subject: Re:
> To: Michel Bauwens <michel...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Peer-To-Peer Research List <p2pre...@listcultures.org>
>
>
> Hi Michel,
>
> I have some serious disagreements with Paul's analysis--while I don't think
> that Postcarbon's report is faultless, I generally disagree with Paul's
> critique for several reasons:
>
> 1. I agree that Paul's faith in simple exponential growth models is
> difficult to take seriously.
As Einstein said, most people don't understand exponential growth. More
proof Einstein was right. :-)
"Wind Power Experiencing Exponential Growth Globally "
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/01/wind-power-experiencing-exponential-growth-globally-54631
"""
The study explores four different scenarios for power consumption and wind
generation which see, should the growth of the last ten years continue, the
potential for global wind power generation (accompanied by solar) to match
that of conventional generation by 2025.
Scenario A: High power consumption and high wind power growth sees
renewables exceed 50 percent of global electricity provision before 2025
with a total demand of 37600 terrawatt-hours (TWh) and wind generation
capacity of 7,500,000 megawatts (MW) worldwide, producing 16400 TWh. Wind
energy, alongside with solar, would conquer a 50 percent market share of
global new power plant installations by 2019. Global non-renewable power
generation would peak in 2018 and could be phased out completely by 2037.
Scenario B: High power consumption and moderate wind power growth (15.2
percent per year, half the rate historically observed 1998-2007) sees
renewables at 23 percent of global electricity provision in 2025, with a
total demand of 37600 TWh and a wind generation capacity of 1,837,000 MW
worldwide, producing some 4023 TWh (including a non specified amount of
solar). As a result, wind energy would conquer a 50 percent market share of
global new power plant installations by 2033, alongside with solar.
Scenario C: Moderate power consumption growth (1.8 percent per year) and
high wind power growth sees renewables exceed 65 percent of global
electricity provision in 2025, with a total electricity demand at 27430 TWh
and a wind capacity of 5,212,000 MW worldwide, producing 11,414 TWh. As a
result, wind energy will conquer a 50 percent market share of global new
power plant installations by 2017, alongside with solar.
Scenario D: Moderate power consumption (1.8 percent per year) and
moderate wind power growth (15.2 percent) sees renewables exceed 31 percent
of global electricity provision in 2025, with a total electricity demand of
27430 TWh and a wind generation capacity of 1,837,000 MW worldwide,
producing 4023 TWh. As a result, wind energy will conquer a 50 percent
market share of global new power plant installations by 2026, along with solar.
"""
Of course, what we usually see in nature is exponential growth to a point,
and then a plateau. And then, depending on how things go, sometimes another
phase of exponential growth. And of course, things do collapse sometimes.
But look at this fact:
"US renewable electricity generation hits 13% in April"
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/green_business/archives/2009/07/us_renewable_el.html
"According to Paul Gipe's new book, Wind Energy Basics 2nd Edition, it would
be entirely plausible for wind power to fully replace all fossil fuel
electricity generation by (approximately) 2025 -- and that allows for an
increase in total electric generation sufficient to convert most of motor
transport from gasoline to electric vehicles. (Conflict of interest alert: I
work at Gipe's publisher, Chelsea Green Publishing.)"
These people have been helping people move to renewables for a long time:
http://www.homepower.com/home/
Another portal:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/home
> Perhaps more importantly, though, it is
> precisely this kind of faith in perpetual growth that is at the root of the
> problems we're currently facing.
A complete misunderstanding of my point. The growth of renewables to replace
other things has little to do with economic growth and may even come about
during a period of decreasing GDP. Was it Kevin Carson who pointed out first
on the P2P list that a move to sustainability could look like an economic
collapse?
> To suggest that the current rate of
> increase in renewable generation will continue *assumes that the current
> rate of general global economic expansion and increase in energy consumption
> will continue.
No, it has little connection. Why should it? I'm talking about real
hardware. Jeff is talking about the false fiat dollar economy. They have at
best a tenuous connection.
> *The analogy to cell phones is telling: the adaptation of a
> new technology was made possible by the general environment of
> growth--precisely the environment that we cannot continue if we ever hope to
> transition to sustainability.
This is fuzzy thinking. It now is painting all "growth" (in terms of change)
as negative. Should the people in materially poor countries not have access
to telecommunications? Basically, the logical fallacy is working from the
assumption "growth is evil", without talking about what kind of growth in
what directions and for whom with what externalities.
What does "sustainability" even mean? It sounds nice, but not when it is
just used as a defense of a rich/poor status quo, or one that it is high
risk of all sorts of other disasters (asteroid strikes, nuclear war, robots
out of control, plagues, etc.)
If we transition to a model of 100% recyclability, as NIST is working
towards (as are many others):
"Sustainable and Lifecycle Information-based Manufacturing"
http://www.mel.nist.gov/programs/slim.htm
then we can produce lots more stuff and recycle it, all "sustainably".
But, to do that, people need access to tools and information, but it is the
very access to tools and information like via cell phones that Jeff seems to
be decrying.
While the video "The Story of Stuff" makes some good points, it misses the
idea that better technology that is more energy efficient or more recyclable
can do more with less (why moving to a new computer monitor from an old one
-- decried in the video -- might actually save resources, because all of our
technology has operating costs like electricity or human effort that add up).
http://www.storyofstuff.com/
The thing to complain about is negative *externalities*, not "growth" or
"change" by itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
But, I get the feeling this is veering into trying to debunk a religion.
My credentials in relation to sustainability:
* I helped run an organic farm certification program for NJ in the 1980s.
* I studied stuff on energy and politics in the 1980s.
* I was in a PhD program in ecology and evolution in the early 1990s.
* My wife and I put more than six person years into building a garden
simulator in the 1990s that we gave away for free with source code, to help
people learn to build their own food.
I'm not Mr. "Rah Rah" business-as-usual. And to try to paint me as such is a
complete misunderstanding of the situation.
> While this is the theoretical fallacy of
> Paul's reliance on exponential growth,
A claim with absolutely no evidence. Even a brief study of the renewable
field shows this exponential growth has been happening for decades.
> there is a much more material problem
> with his approach: continuation of the exponential growth of renewables
> requires, at a minimum, the same net energy balance as our global economy
> currently enjoys (and arguably it requires the same increasing net energy
> balance it has enjoyed over the past several decades). This assumption is
> faulty precisely because the great net-energy levels provided by past fossil
> fuel production is rapidly declining.
According to Lester Brown's site, fossil fuel use has essentially plateaued
over all in the USA and is slightly declining (in relation to the
recession). Fossil fuel use is, unfortunately, still expanding in some other
countries (like China, burning coal). Renewables still continue to grow
exponentially. See:
"The End of an Era: Closing the Door on Building New Coal-fired Power Plants
in America "
http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/plan_b_updates/2009/update81
Anyway, we have centuries of coal we could burn at current rates, so this
argument in general is misinformed, confusing oil, coal, and natural gas. As
long as we are willing to tolerate the pollution, we could burn lots of
coal. But, as I said, within twenty or so years at current exponential
growth rates, we will be running almost entirely off of renewables. Already
there is public sentiment in the USA against new coal plants, as Lester
Brown points out. China is making a major push to renewables. So this
argument about running out of fossil fuel is just silly.
Further, it takes more electricity to make a gallon of gas than it would
take to make a good electric vehicle go the same distance as as internal
combustion car burning the gas, so overall our electricity use would go down
if we switched to electric cars and we would not need the oil at all.
http://www.evnut.com/gasoline_oil.htm
> It's one thing to increase global
> renewable generation by 50% each year when this increase is fueled by 100:1
> net energy oil and natural gas.
Energy payback for renewables and energy efficiency ranges, but can be on
the order of 10 to one to 60 to one. So, even ignoring that we have
centuries of coal, renewables could power their own growth. There are
already renewable energy producers who use renewable energy to make their
solar panels.
> It's entirely different to suggest that we
> can continue to maintain these levels of increase when we're relying on much
> lower net energy fuels, as we are today (approaching 10:1 and decreasing).
Again, base on completely flawed premises and analysis.
> When he starts talking about populations in the quadrillions, and "spaceship
> earth" working for everyone, I can't help but worry that this kind of
> thinking--even IF it temporarily succeeds, will only doom billions to
> misery, starvation, etc. as the ultimate and indisputable unsustainability
> of any system predicated on perpetual growth can only "succeed" in pushing
> the problem on to later generations (a clear moral wrong, in my opinion).
Again, just rhetoric and no serious attempt to address the points I raise.
Look at the numbers. Freeman Dyson did. Gerard K. O'Neill did. These are
award winning physicists, who say this is possible. Who should I believe,
award winning physicists saying things that may cause them career problems
(seeming kooky) or professional doomsters ?
Basically, if there is not some commercial angle in promoting doomster
thinking, is the author in deep despair? If so, I recommend:
"Vitamin D"
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml
"Dark Nights of the Soul: A Guide to Finding Your Way Through Life's Ordeals"
http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Nights-Soul-Finding-Through/dp/1592400671
"Surviving America's Depression Epidemic: How to Find Morale, Energy, and
Community in a World Gone Crazy"
http://www.amazon.com/Surviving-Americas-Depression-Epidemic-Community/dp/1933392711
But there are also lots more things one can do to improve one's life or
local community (good sleep, eat organic, go vegetarian, fast occasionally,
meditate, develop new relationships or renew old ones, and so on).
> 2. Paul's analysis also hinges on the viability of his very high energy
> payback figures. He quotes payback times of no more than 2 years, and
> perhaps only a few months, as well as EROEI as high as 60. In my opinion,
> these numbers are completely unsupported, and suffer from a number of
> additional methodological flaws. It's important to note that, if these
> unsupported numbers are off, then so is his entire critique.
OK, it's one guys opinion against what are by now well established numbers
in that field.
> A) First, he provides no support for these numbers. while I don't
> think it's fair to expect him to footnote his email,
People complain when I do, and then they complain when I don't. :-)
In any case, even if EROI is only 2, that is enough to go all to renewables.
> I am unaware of any
> study that *accounts for all energy inputs* and reaches numbers anywhere
> near that high. There are many studies that show very high numbers, but
> they arrive at them by looking only at the energy used at the manufacturing
> plant, and ignore the essential and very significant energies used to
> extract and process raw materials, used to transport materials and finished
> systems, used by the labor, engineering, etc. at each point along the way,
> etc.
Oh come on, these are often accounted for in studies. Wind power is pretty
straight forward to analyze, as most of the energy cost is concrete for the
pedestal or for making metal or composite turbine blades and structure.
Here is one discussion on the site you post on it suggests high energy gains
for wind:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/1863
Here are low/high estimates for PV and those are for *older* technologies:
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/17219
The one called "FLATCON" in 2005 had an EROI approaching 60.
My estimate of 60 was for thin films with an EROI of about six months, so
with thirty year life, you get a 60 times payback.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell#Solar_cells_and_energy_payback
"Generally, thin-film technologies - despite having comparatively low
conversion efficiencies - achieve significantly shorter energy payback times
than conventional systems (often < 1 year).[^ K. L. Chopra, P. D. Paulson,
and V. Dutta (2004). "Thin-film solar cells: An overview Progress in
Photovoltaics". Research and Applications 12: 69�92.]"
But you can argue against the extremes, but the factor of thirty or so is
well established for PV collectors. Now, you may argue the rest of the
system takes energy too, but that payback is so large, and PV can be mounted
on *existing* structures, so there are lots of places you can get close to
that 30:1 payback, like on the roofs of homes or commercial buildings.
Structurally integrated PV has been under development, and with a turnover
in buildings every forty years or so, we can move most of our buildings to
integrated PV production over the next couple decades at very little extra
cost as these production technologies improve. Example:
http://www.uni-solar.com/interior.asp?id=74
> There have been some very good and recent studies performed that come
> to the conclusion that the EROEI for wind is no more than 12, and that the
> EROEI of photovoltaics (even thin film) is in the range of 2:1-6:1. See,
> e.g., http://www.uvm.edu/~ikubisze/site/Kubiszewski_2009_wind%20EROI.pdf<http://www.uvm.edu/%7Eikubisze/site/Kubiszewski_2009_wind%20EROI.pdf>.
> Dr. Charles Hall and David Murphy, at the recent ASPO-USA conference, stated
> that 18:1 for wind currently appears high, and that 10:1 for solar currently
> appears high, and that even these numbers are not accounting for all
> inputs. I welcome references to studies that *include all energy
> inputs*and that show higher numbers, but I haven't seen any. The same
> holds true
> for the much-vaunted "thin-film" solar: while the energy required in the
> manufacturing plant leads many to make very high estimates for EROEI, there
> are no studies currently avaialble (of which I am aware) that include the
> full "long tail" of energy inputs, and the fact that thin-film still costs
> more per KWh produced suggests to me that there are great amounts of
> "hidden" energy represented by that cost that have not yet come to light...
Well, if you know of no studies, then, what proof do you have that these
costs are significant?
Besides, as above, wind power seems pretty easy to analyze.
> B) Second, he accuses the nay-sayers of structural bias--that the
> proponents of low-EROEI studies are biased to gain research funding. I
> think this is exactly backward--by far the majority of the funding here is
> by those companies that want to advance their own renewable energy
> solutions, not by people questioning their effectiveness. Many, if not
> most, of the numbers I've seen advanced have come directly from for-profit
> companies providing either wind or solar "solutions." While I don't think
> arguments of strucutral bias are conclusive, it's my view that, if anything,
> they tend to exaggerate the EROEI of renewables, though they must be
> evaluated on a source-by-source basis...
Well, that may be true.
Again though, the energy embodied in concrete and steel (or whatever a
windmill or solar thermal system uses) seems pretty straightforward to
calculate. And, we already have lots of metal refined that we can melt down
and reuse for less energy than extraction. We have a massive economy that
already has lots of materials available to it. The production of newer
lighter cars is making the automotive industry a net *producer* of steel for
example.
> C) Third, he fails to account for societal EROEI or Jeavons'
> paradox. Neither wind nor solar energy can plug directly in to our current
> energy grid and directly displace current fossil fuel consumption.
Then how are countries like Denmark doing it? Also, their is compressed air
storage, reverse hydroelectric pumping, and battery banks, not no mention
many other technologies under development.
> With
> liquid fuels, substituting renewables requires significant energy investment
> in grid and point-of-use transition (e.g. converting oil-powered cars,
> ships, trains to electric, building new support infrastructure, etc.).
Within ten years, almost all cars are turned over. There is about no extra
cost switching our cars over. We have something like twenty million
unemployed or underemployed people in the USA; there is no shortage of
people who want to do this.
> With
> current electricity consumption, substituting renewables for coal/gas
> generation requires significant investment in storage, smart-metering, and
> grid upgrades to balance out intermittancy of generation.
OK, so labor is involved. What is ignored is that millions of people are
already involved in the energy industry one way or another, and millions
more are looking for work to do. The scale of the resources we have to solve
these problems is vast.
> In all cases,
> transition to renewables will require a massive investment in our electrical
> grid, which is very energy intensive both to build and maintain. I'm not
> aware of any studies that have addressed this "societal" EROEI quesion
> (accounting for these systemic side effects of switching to renewable
> sources of energy), so I don't think we can rule out the possibility that
> this will cut the *realized* EROEI of renewables by half or more.
This is just speculation. And it is also speculation than ignores people can
put renewables like solar panels on their own roofs to produce power locally.
> Similarly, Paul does not consider the systemic effects of affordable energy
> (what I'm losely categorizing as "Jeavons' Paradox") on energy demand. To
> the extent that renewables do keep energy available at approximately current
> price levels, the growth in energy demand from developing nations will
> continue as it has in the past (here, Paul's reliance on exponential growth
> comes back to bite his argument!). It's poor argument to suggest that we
> can enjoy exponential growth in renewable energy supply without commensurate
> exponential growth in global energy demand--that's a battle that we've been
> losing for decades, as energy has become consistently more expensive and
> more scarce as global demand growth has outpaced supply growth.
Actually, limited demand is something that undermines conventional
economics, and I've written much on that before. Healthy humans have limited
demand for most material goods (once a certain threshold is reached).
"Jevon's paradox" is not accurate in the long term. See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
"Several points can be raised against this argument. First, in the context
of a mature market such as for oil, the direct rebound effect is usually
small, and so increased fuel efficiency usually reduces resource
use.[4][8][9] (However, fuel use may still increase because of faster
economic growth.) Second, even if increased fuel efficiency does not reduce
the total amount of fuel used, this ignores other benefits associated with
increased fuel efficiency. For example, increased fuel efficiency may
mitigate the price increases, shortages and disruptions in the global
economy associated with peak oil. Third, fuel use will decline if increased
fuel efficiency is met with government intervention (e.g. a green tax,
license fees, etc.) that keeps the cost of use the same.[5] By mitigating
the economic effects of government intervention designed to promote
ecologically sustainable activities, efficiency-improving technological
progress may make the government intervention more palatable, and more
likely to be implemented. Additionally, the Jevons Paradox only applies to
technological improvements that increase fuel efficiency, corporate or
government policies that impose higher efficiency standards usually increase
the cost of use[citation needed], and so will not display the Jevons Paradox."
But the bigger fact not mentioned there is that eventually healthy people
reach a limit for their demands for all sorts of material things.
Also, what is wrong with massive use of renewable energy if it is
accompanied by 100% recycling and other efforts to deal reasonably with
externalities? Again, there is the confusion here of growth and externalities.
Are you against quadrillions of humans living in the solar system, enjoying
life?
> As a
> result, even if thin-film solar pans out, it won't make energy cheaper or
> reduce our carbon emissions--it will only ensure that the third world is
> able to "develop" along an energy-intensification paradigm (as opposed to a
> quality of life/community paradigm) that facilitates our burning of the very
> last of our coal and oil (and sooner!).
Fuzzy thinking. Cheap energy does not make energy cheaper? Because people
use more? When so much of recent innovation is to make devices use less
energy? And many countries show increasing standards of living even with
less per-capita energy use? The facts looking at countries other than the
USA do not uphold that line of argument.
Again, we have centuries of coal even if we got all our energy from it, so
again, a flawed assumption.
> If, as I believe, the correct societal EROEI/net-energy numbers for
> renewables are as low as feared (between 5:1 and 10:1 over a 40 year period,
> so a payback time of 4-8 years), then this really is an issue worthy of
> "fear-mongering." At a minimum, I argue that we don't know the answer to
> these critical questions, and that therefore the Precautionary
> Principle suggests that we assume the worst.
Sometimes assumptions that are counter to the obvious facts lead to disaster.
> Let me know if that response makes sense (it's just stream of consciousness
> at the moment). A few articles I've written on this topic:
>
> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5580
> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5588
> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5784
> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5965
>
> Jeff
I doubt I'm going to get you to step away from a doomster religion. I'm
mostly replying so other people don't get confused too much by it. See also:
http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/
Other people on this:
http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/article/1792
"It's worth noting that, if you take into account the environmental costs of
burning coal, solar power is already slightly more economically sound
(according to an analysis by the IPCC.) But we're not taxing carbon (yet) so
we've got to make solar power cheaper. ... As coal and gas have remained
extremely cheap over the last fifty years, there's been very little pressure
to innovate and move beyond that technology. But now, with natural gas
prices increasing along with concerns about global warming, we're finally
ready to innovate. And expansions in materials and nanotechnology are making
the change even more interesting. It's no longer a question in my mind of if
we can get solar cheaper than coal, it's simply when, and whether another
renewable energy, like geothermal or wind, will beat solar to the punch."
Anyway, other stuff to do. It's sad to see so much energy go into
doomsterism instead of fixing the problems. They are serious problems, but
we have a lot of resources to fix them with, and more being produced every day.
--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/